Summary
In People v. Detres–Perez, 127 A.D.3d 535, 5 N.Y.S.3d 729 [1st Dept.2015], relying on Penal Law § 60.30, this Court recently found that a forfeiture agreement was part of the judgment of conviction and thus reviewable on the appeal from the judgment.
Summary of this case from People v. BurgosOpinion
04-16-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Elsie DETRES–PEREZ, Defendant–Appellant.
Feldman and Feldman, Uniondale (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Eleanor J. Ostrow of counsel), for respondent.
Feldman and Feldman, Uniondale (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant.Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Eleanor J. Ostrow of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered April 3, 2012, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of conspiracy in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of 4 ? to 13 years, unanimously affirmed.
Since the record establishes that defendant's forfeiture agreement was part of the judgment of conviction (see Penal Law § 60.30 ), defendant's challenge to that agreement is reviewable on this appeal (see People v. Carmichael, 123 A.D.3d 1053, 999 N.Y.S.2d 476 [2d Dept.2014] ). However, her claim that the court coerced the agreement is unpreserved (see People v. Abruzzese, 30 A.D.3d 219, 220, 816 N.Y.S.2d 464 [1st Dept.2006], lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 784, 821 N.Y.S.2d 814, 854 N.E.2d 1278 [2006] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits.
We perceive no basis for reducing the prison sentence.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., FRIEDMAN, MANZANET–DANIELS, CLARK, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.